heretic

Here we go again with this tautological proposition that "Existence exist." But what is wrong with asking "What does exist?" Why can't we transcend the temporality of things? What is wrong of even thinking about the possibility that a four-dimensional universe could have existed and not a three-dimensional one, such as what we have now? Is it because Objectivism is such a closed and absolute philosophical system that only material things exist as far as it is concerned? I dont want to be shackled by such intellectual tyranny. Thjere must always be room for doubt and possibilities in philosophy. Absolute certainty and dogmatism belongs to the realm of religion. It is not something I want to propose here. Pardon my density, but could you please rephrase that? What are these false premises that are so obvious to you and not to me? What false logic is not obvious to you, and how did you know of it if it is not obvious to you?

That is exactly what I was saying all along. It is merely a term Therefore we cannot say that it is contingent or necessary. These terms we apply to things that exist in reality, and not to concepts or ideas that exist in the mind. We cannot say that the things in the universe are contingent. but the universe is necessary as if the universe is a separarte existing thing from its parts in reality. The fact is the things, which make up the universe, are contingent. even if we lump them together and call them the universe, they would still be contingent. Hence, this whole, which we call the universe, is still contingent. It does not assume a different way of existing simply because they are lumped together.

Please allow me to rephrase: 1. Things, as I see and know them (not merely the stuff of things), are temporal and could cease to exist. 2. These things appear to be dependent or contingent on others for their existence. 3. There is a likelihood that they could not have always existed. 4. There is a likelihood that there was a moment in the past when they did not exist, since by the nature of things, they are temporal and not eternal. 5. Since they exist, their existence has been brought about by something else. 6. If we go back to the beginning and principles of things their existence would ultimately be depnednet on a being that is unlike these things, in that this being is necessary and not contingent. 7. Therefore, this being exists. Of course, it exists. Why should I be talking about it if I believe that it does not exist by a long shot.

We are not even properly talking about God yet. We are merely talking about the existence of the NECESSARY ENTITY. We are not also talking about the NATURE of God. We are merely talking about the probability of the EXISTENCE of God.

I started with what I saw, and what I saw is ths fact that there are things that are material and contingent. Please forgive me, but I am confused with your concepts of "necessary" and "contingent". The fallacy of composition should be applied in its proper context. It is not absolute. For example, the components (the parts) of a radio (the whole) are defective. It follows therefore that the radio is defective. The stones (parts) of a necklace (whole) are precious. It follows therefore that the necklace is precious. So is it the case of the universe, where the whole is merely a conception of the mind for a collection of material things, from atoms to stars, which are the parts that we perceive with our senses.

My starting point was reason and not religion, but if it eventually leads to that, then so be it. I wanted to disabuse my mind of this God concept so that I would not be begging the question. My starting point assumed that everything that exists is material reality. However, in my analysis of such a reality or the things that make up such a reality, I found out that such things are dependent on something else or others for their existence. And if I consider the whole, I am inclined to think the same way. This lead me to the probabaility of the existence of the necessary entity, which many others have called GOD. I think you hit the nail right on the head. The framework of Objectivism subescribes to the foundational principle that existence is nothing more that material existence, with nothing beyond that. Hence, any God does not belong to the realm of reality, but to the realm of fantasy. Any talk or debate about God is simply debating about the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster--it is purely nonesense. In the beginning, the Almighty Atom formed the heavens and the earth. In the beginning was the Atom, and the Atom was with God, and the Atom was God. However, my reasoning points me to another direction. And so here I am to see if my direction is correct and to see if Objectivism will give me the right direction or if I have to look somewhere else.

I do not intend to prove that the self-evident exists. I am not trying to explain that it exists. I am trying to explain its COMING INTO EXISTENCE. The universe is everything that exists? So you say. That is the Objectivist framework. And the soundness of that claim is exactly what I am trying to test. What evidence can there possibly be for such an assertion that things are contingent? I have already defined my concept of contingency.

The falling rock posits the probability of the existence of the Law of Gravity. I am the one positing the claim that the necessary entity exists based on my analysis that things that exist are material, physical, temporal, finite, contingent. Would it be better if I say that “The contingency of material reality POINTS to the probability of the existence of a necessary entity on which this reality is dependent.”? Two kinds of reality? I would say so. The two kinds are material reality (such as the human body or the human brain, which you can see with the eyes) and immaterial or non-material reality (such as human nature or human consciousness, which you can “see” only with the mind). The argument is not based on religion, but is based on reason. My starting point is reality or existence as I initially see it and as I subsequently understand it as contingent.

The contingency of material reality posits the probability of the existence of a necessary entity on which this reality is dependent. The aforementioned proposition of the philosophical theist is classically called the Cosmological Argument from Contingency, which has been used by Aristotle, Aquinas, Averroes and Maimonides. It contemplates the existence of a being that is variably denominated as the demiurge (Plato), prime mover (Aristotle), uncaused cause (Aquinas), sufficient reason (Leibniz) or the god of the philosophers (Pascal). Hence, although we call this necessary entity God, it is not the I AM WHO AM of Judeo-Christian revelation or the personal God of Christian theology, but the God that is demonstrated by reason. In other words, it is God from the viewpoint of philosophy because the argument for this God proceeds on the basis of philosophical principles—by observation and argumentation, by the apprehension/perception of the senses and the conception/comprehension of the mind—and not on the ground of theological truths. This is the reason why it is said that the proposition is not that of a mere theist, but it is that of the philosophical theist. It is a proposition of a philosopher who starts with his perception of contingent reality and stops with his conception of the necessary entity on which the said reality is dependent. Material reality refers to physical things or to an existent that is palpable, physical, composite; that which could be seen, felt, touched, tasted, etc; that which is made up of parts, for example, compounds, elements, molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, etc. It is also observed and known to be apparently temporal and finite. This leads to the concept of contingency. A thing or any material reality could not have existed and could cease to exist. I exist, but it is possible that I may not have existed and it is probable that I would cease to exist at some moment in the future. This is because things are composite and therefore have been composed at some moment in the past and are susceptible to decomposition at some moment in the future. Hence, they have a beginning and an ending. Thus, there was a moment in the past when they did not exist, or it is possible that they could have existed in another way, and there would be a moment in the future when they would cease to exist. It is possible that we could not have existed or we could have not been born. There would be a time when we will cease to exist. Material reality, from atoms to stars, as perceived by the senses and conceived by the mind so far, is marked with contingency. A thing that is contingent is dependent on something else for its existence. The universe as a whole or existence in general, which is merely composed of particular parts or contingent things, is contingent also. Existence in general or the universe as a whole is only conceived by the mind, like the terms "team" and "society", as a collective term to refer to particular existents. The whole does not exist as a thing separate and aside from its particular parts. Existing things in particular, which make up the whole and which are apprehended by the senses, like cars and stars, exist separately each with their own particular identities. Of course, both the whole and its parts are undeniable facts and are real. However, the whole is the product of the conceptualization of the mind, while its parts are those that we apprehend with our senses. In this connection, the universe as a whole or existence in general is contingent because its parts are contingent. Contingency is the key to the whole argument. On the other hand, an entity is necessary if it is impossible for it not to exist. Thus, it must exist. It would and should always be there. Since this entity is necessary, its identity or characteristics are implicitly the opposite of those of a contingent being. God is proposed by philosophical theists to be the only necessary being. The existence of a necessary entity is posited as probable because this would be the explanation for the existence of contingent material reality. This necessary entity was responsible for the creation and design, or explains the existence, of contingent reality. Nothing would exist in the first place without the existence of this entity. This entity would be a part of existence since it exists. However, this entity would not exist as a material existent, but as an immaterial existent since it is not contingent. Hence, God is not created. Otherwise, this entity would not be a necessary being but a contingent thing that would in turn be in need of a creator. Contingent material reality is explicitly and naturally palpable, physical, composite, temporal and finite; whereas, the necessary entity is implicitly and supernaturally impalpable, spiritual, simple, eternal and infinite. For this reason, the scientific method used to explain what is natural cannot be used to prove the existence of the supernatural. Only philosophical speculation could be used to demonstrate the existence of the necessary being. Is the philosophical theist absolutely certain, like the Christian philosopher, without the benefit of divine revelation, and by relying merely on human reason only that God exists? No! But neither is the philosophical theist absolutely certain also, unlike the Christian philosopher, without the benefit of divine revelation, and by relying merely on human reason that God does not exist. Absolute certainty could only be provided by divine revelation. On the other hand, if it could be scientifically proven with absolute certainty that the universe is completely and actually infinite in duration (time) and extension (space), or is eternal and boundless, and is necessary, then there would be no room for God. In which case, the philosophical theist’s proposition that God exists would be wrong and just a fantasy. However, this appears not to be the case because some scientific theories, corroborating philosophical speculation, seem to point to the possibility or probability that the universe has not always been here or had a beginning.

I'm sorry David for confusing you with my compound sentences. I was actually making a distinction between: Existence as a whole or the universe - conceived by the mind, like the terms "team" and "society", and does not exist as a thing separate from its parts or as a particular object with its own identity separate from its parts. Existing things in particular (that make up the whole) - apprehended by the senses, like cars and stars, which exist separately each with their own particular identities. Of course, both are undeniable facts and are real. However, the whole is the product of the conceptualization of the mind, while its parts are those that we apprehend with our senses. Human nature and human consciousness are realities and are facts. They exist in reality. There would be no human being/person without them. However, you cannot see them the way you see or could see cars or stars. They cannot be perceived by the senses, but they can be conceived by the mind. Moreover, they do not exist independent of the human beings in which they exist. They cannot exist without the human being. They exist within the human being. They are like the essence or form of Aristotle that is conceived by the mind and that exists in particular things. Hence, there are realities that are perceived by the senses (we can see them with our eyes) and there are those that are conceived by the mind (we can "see" them with our mind). It is therefore correct to say that not everything that exists in reality are material things. When I said material, I referred to an existent that is palpable, physical, composite; that which I see or can see, feel, touch, taste, etc; that which is made up of parts, for example, compounds, elements, molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, etc. The non-material existent would be human consciousness, soul, mind, nature, essence, form etc. In the theistic equation, God would be a non-material existent. On the other hand, of course, God would not be a part of the Objectivist framework. A thing is necessary if it is impossible for it not to exist. Thus, it must exist. It would always be there. God is proposed by theists to be the only necessary being. A thing is contingent if it is possible for it not to exist. Thus, it may or may not have existed. It was not always there. This is possible on account of the fact that things are composite and suceptible to decomposition. Hence, they have a beginning and ending. Thus, there was a moment in the past when they did not exist, or it is possible that they could have existed in another way, and there would be a time in the future when they would cease to exist. It is possible that we could not have existed or we could have not been born. There would be a time when we will cease to exist. We are not necessary beings. Contingency is a fact. We cannot merely explain this away by gratuitously dismissing it as meaningless the way the logical positivists did. In my apprehension and comprehension of material reality, I have yet to see any existing physical object/material reality/thing that is not contingent. Thanks David, I will find out how I could join that forum. After all, those who say that God exists has the burden of proof. For my part, I have been arguing for the existence of God from the contingency of material reality.

I think that everything has to do with Rand's self-centered ethics where sex is regarded as something that is as natural of eating and drinking and should be indulged in for as long as it makes you happy since it is natural for man to desire to have sex. The morality of sex revolves around this self-centered ethical norm. The same could be said probably of masturbation, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality (which Rand initially despised), same-sex marriage, abortion, incest, polygamy etc. for as long as it is mutual and it makes those involved in it happy, self-fulfilled, and feeling like one who has attained his/her purpose in life. This selfishness makes the hero who gives up his life for another, such as the soldier who dies for his country or the doctor who dies while on a mission to save others from sickness, a fool. This is the result of a life that removes the center from God and focuses it on man who then becomes the God of his own life and purpose.

Sorry, Iwas not talking about atheism in general. I was referring to the strong/positive/explicit type of atheism. Scientists have different theories to explain the origin and finity, or eternity and infinity of the universe. One such debate took place between theistic scientist Francis Collins and atheistic scientist Richard Dawkins in Time Magazine (dated January 15, 2007), more specifically on the compatibility of God and science.

Assuming that all things were material and eternal , which I find doubtful given the contingency and temporality of things in particular. Your existence as a whole that excludes God is a general conceptualization based on your perception of things in particular, which is like my existence as a whole that includes God as a general conceptualization based on my perception of things in particular. The key here is the concept of "contingency". I have predicated this concept of the whole, based on my predication of this concept of the parts. If all that exists are material things, then this god would merely be material. But not everything seems to be material based on the contingency of material reality. Thus, there exists an entity that brought particular things into existence, which entity cannot be material otherwise it would also be in need of a Creator. If things were necessary and not contingent, then there would be no room for a Creator. The universe is the collective term we give to designate the whole of the collection of its particular parts. There is no such thing as the universe as a whole existing as a concete and particular things, aside from its individual parts existing as concerete and particualr things. The same could be said of the terms "team" and "society." They exist only in the mind, but what exists in reality as concerete and particular things are the things that make up what we call the "team" or "society" as a whole. The same could be said of the Aristotelian essence and form that exist only in particular things and as part of them, although they are real, unlike the Platonic forms that have a world of their own. Unless, of course, you are referring to the eternity of prime matter, which is the "stuff" of particular material things, according to Aristotle. Because God is precisely immaterial and the Creator of material things, which I deduced from the contingency of particular things. What I have said of things that exist in particular, I have applied to the whole of existence in general. The key to the whole discussion for me is the concept of contingency. If things were not contingent but necessary, then they would always be there and it would be impossible for them not to exist. They would consequently be eternal. They would not be in need of a Creator. However, material/particular things that exist as I perceive them are contingent because they are composites and are therefore susceptible to decomposition and disintegration. They are temporal. They are finite. They are not necessary. Thus, there was moment in the past when they did not exist. Moreover, they could not have existed in the first place or could have existed in another way. This only emphasizes their contingency. Now, where did they come from. The Uncaused Cause is posited as an explanation. If God were created then he would not be God, he would be David or Maarten.

It depends on your perception of reality. For the atheist, in the beginning there was only material existence. For the deist, in the beginning was God. For the idealist, in the beginning were ideas. For the Christian theist, in the beginning was the Word who created the heavens and the earth. I used the general term "infinity" and particular term "eternity" in relation to time or duration, and I used infinity also in relation to space and quality. What has always been there? If you say matter, which I find doubtful, then matter would be eternal. However, I believe that the so-called sum is merely a general term for the collection of the particular parts. The whole exists only in the mind, it is the parts (that with particular identity, as you call it) that exist outside of the mind. Thus, if the things that make up the whole are perceived to be particularly contingent and temporal, then the whole is conceived to be generally contingent and temporal also.

Magnitude and limitations could be said of material things. If infinity is merely a potential, then things that exist, which constitute what we call "existence" or the universe as a whole, are finite. As such, they had a beginning. This points to their contingency. If so, there was a moment in the past when they did not exist and had to be brought into existence. What caused them to exist? Abiogenesis or self-creation is not possible. Therefore, there must be a cause other/outside/beyond themselves that brought such things into existence. This is what theism comprehends or conceptualizes to be the possibility/probabaility for the existence of the being called God based on what it apprehends or perceives to be the contingency of material reality.

Thanks for the reminder David. I am sorry I overlooked this. The concept of God is incompatible with the axiomatic principles that "Only material existence exists" and "existence is identity, which is only material". All knowledge about the physical world derives validity from these principles. Ok. Thanks for the advice, David. Yes I read it from the website of Dr. Kelley. The key to Objectivism is its empiricist epistemology. I was thinking of scientific proof emanating from the scientific method, which is valued in the epistemological paradigm of Ayn Rand. Ok. Thanks again. Yes I know, but I was rather intrigued by the term or concept "stolen." This is because Platonism is idealism. Perhaps, assuming that they are not composite. But I predicated composition of matter based on what I have observed of things tht exist. I do not have a machine that could chop matter into its basic composition ad infinitum. They key to this philosophy of Ayn Rand is that all that exists is finite matter. Thus, matter = existence, and vise versa. However, what happens to immaterial realities that exist, for example human nature and human consciousness, and the spiritual aspect of man according to Rand? They are not material, but they exist. Ok. I'll do that.

Ok. If you say so.

Peter, is it not axiomatic or self-evident that we are fallible and finite? Otherwise, we would be God. But that would be fantasy, not reality.

Existence is the whole that is made up of finite, particular, definite, contingent, material, immaterial, sensible, physical parts, like atoms and stars. Identity is what something is. A thing that has the identity of a cat is a cat. A baker through his actions bakes a cake. The baker and his actions constitute the cause and the cake is the effect. Michael, I think we have difrent concepts of things.

Everything that exists. But this does not mean that such immaterial realities, such as human nature and human consciousness, should be excluded from the whole of existence. Hence, not everything that exists is material. I am not a skeptic, I only want to assume nothing. I want to be educated and I think I could do this by challenging the best position that atheism could put forward. So far the lines are drawn between the eternity of matter that does not need a creator and the contingency of matter that leaves room for a creator. This is in the light of the fact that Objectivism is more akin to empiricism.

Maarten, this is why I had to use the qualifier "material" and if "material" could be predicated of existence as a whole, then is would be right to say that God is merely a fantasy and does not belong to the realm of reality. I am precisely challenging this position and see where it leads us.

I agree that you cannot resort to pure fantasy because philosophy deals with reality. In contradistiction with the creation, the Creator as the Uncaused Cause has to be infinite since only an infinite power is capable of creating out of nothing. Because he is infinite. Because he is infinite. Because he is infinite. It is the product of the conceptualization/comprehension/abstraction of my mind from the perception/apprehension of my senses of contingent reality. Well, of course, I want to stay within the realm of philosophy/reason and do not want to discuss the Bible here because that would be in the realm of theology/revelation, which actually provide us with an absolute certainty about the existence and nature of the entity we call God.

I subscribe to your contention Kendall for the need for the qualifier "material" because it enables me to posit that God did not self-create since to self-create would mean that he would have to exist to be the creator and, at the same time, not exist to be the creature, which is impossible. God cannot “be” and “not be” at the same time. The question about who created God, however, could also be avoided when we posit God as the Uncaused Cause. Omnipotence requires that he created everything that is material. So God is an immaterial, spiritual entity with infinite power. Of course, God is given as “something” and not “nothing”, and a particular being but different from particular beings or things that exist that we see everyday. Here is where we encounter the distinction between the Creator and the creation. God is posited by theistic philosophers as reality itself who gives reality to all things. But we are wading into deeper waters already in the sea of theism. I am fallible and limited, therefore I cannot say that God does not exist. I do not want to assert God’s existence. I am looking at the evidence for it, so that in the end, I would not be saying (with Bertrand Russell): “Not enough evidence God! Not enough evidence!” I am only stating what I have learned from theistic philosophy. [ED: removed excess quotation. DO]

David, you are right about dogma, the source of which in religion is divine revelation. Facts that we know would be a correct basis for believing in the non-existence of God. But it is not a complete basis unless we know everything there is to know in the universe. There are many things we have yet to discover, so that we cannot be arbitrary and absolute about our knowledge of reality. The lack of proof of some idea does not also mean that we should arbitrarily and absolutely dismiss the idea as false. That is what the Renaissance churchmen did, among others, when they burned Giordano Bruno and interdicted Galileo and Copernicus for their astronomical theories. How do we reduce something into evidence? How do we reduce human nature and consciousness into evidence? I believe that reality simply is, regardless of whether you can prove it, see it, know it, or not. That is my point. A thing exists even if we do not have proof or evidence of it. The absence of proof or evidence does not mean that it does not exist. What is proof? Where is the proof that God cannot exist? What would be the reverse of the fallacy of begging the question or petitio principii (the fallacy of the stolen concept)? Could you show some examples of this? How and why are they stolen? I thought that truth was the quality of a statement as to whether it agrees or disagrees with reality, so much so that a statement is true if it agrees with reality, e.g. Snow is white; and is false if it does not agree with reality, e.g. Snow is black. Arguments (which are either valid or invalid) are made up of statements (which are either true or false), statements are made up of terms (which are either accurate or inaccurate), and the value of terms depend upon the meanings and concepts we predicate upon them. Am I correct here? I guess I have to learn more about the concepts and meanings being used and their references in Objectivism. Material means anything that is physical, composite, has dimensions. If everything that exists is merely material then to say that God exists means that God is also material. Moreover, to say that God created ALL that exists means that God created himself. Otherwise, who created God? However, to say that God is not material would mean that what God created were ALL THINGS THAT WERE MATERIAL. This is the reason why we have to say the immaterial God created all things that are material to avoid asking the question who created God. God is not created reality, and not contingent and temporal being. He is uncreated reality, and a necessary and eternal being. We determine what he is by determining what he is not. But this is the theistic concept that concerns the NATURE of God, and not the philosophical endeavor that merely concerns itself with the EXISTENCE of God. Thanks David for the rejoinder.

Peter, what do you mean by positive evidence? Does it mean that which has resulted from experimentation? Does it mean that which we can merely apperehnd by the senses, or that which can see or are capable of seeing, like cars and stars? Does it also encompass that which we can only comprehend with the mind, like human nature and consciousness? We can comprehend God and we can comprehend the Flying Spaghetti Moster? However, with God we can comprehend that to him we could ascribe the beginning of contingent reality; with the Spaghetti Monster can we comprehend that it belongs purely to the realm of the imagination unless it is also omnipotent in which case God and the Monster are the same entity. Where is the physical evidence? None. Where is any kind of evidence? None? Still, the absence of evidence is not he evidence of absence, unless we are arbitrary. What is identity? Is it the same as to be identified as something? Omnipresence does not have any physical identity? But who said that God is physical. God is not physical, therefore he is not real? How about human nature and consciousness. Omnipotence means not having any identity to one's actions? But he created the world. What identity of actions do you mean? Omniscience means not having identity to the mind? Whose mind? The limited human mind? The definition of God as a physical being means that such a God does not exist. I am sorry for sounding like Socrates, but I think that I, of all the aspiring philosophers, know that I know nothing.